kehatch
-
Posts
10,467 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
33
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Videos
Events
Gallery
Everything posted by kehatch
-
I would be okay with a trade for Lehner. But not for a top 6 prospect and a high draft pick.I might do something like Shore and a fourth.
-
To you, yes. You have been a big supporter. But I doubt that is true to the hockey world. They had similar NHL numbers (neither good) and we're the same age. Markstrom had long been hyped as the next big thing. He had better AHL numbers and more NHL experience. I think it is a fair point that if Markstrom clears waivers Ortio probably does as well.
-
Part of the conversation is, does Ramo want to be back? Does he want to play second fiddle to Hiller with Ortio knocking at the door? Or does he want to go somewhere where he has a better chance of earning a number one and has a bit of a future? I could see it go either way.
-
I was when he was hot. But he cooled off a bunch at the end. I think he clears. But your right that it is a risk.
-
Agreed. The Flames have four options. Let Ramo walk. Enter the season with Hiller / Ortio Trade Hiller and sign Ramo. Enter the season with Ramo / Ortio. Sign Ramo and keep Hiller. Enter the season with Ramo / Hiller (Ortio can compete to try and unseat one of the two). Keep one of Hiller / Ramo as the starter and bring on another goalie to provide competition to Ortio. I don't think any are bad options. My personal take is I don't trust Ortio enough to keep a position for him out of camp. I also don't like going into next season with Ramo / Hiller because I don't see either as a goalie of the future for us and I would rather see the time spent on someone with some future. So I guess I like number 4. But honestly, that is nit picking a little. Any of the four options are fine IMO.
-
I hate to speculate about goalies. It's hard to determine who thinks they need one and how much you will get. I never saw a second round pick coming for Berra for example. But if they move Hiller it isn't for a big return. It's to make room to sign Ramo and still have room for Ortio.
-
Overachievers isn't an insult. It's a compliment. But Hudler has been a 0.6 PPG player throughout his career. He put up an extra 20 points this season and was at a PPG. When a player sees that much of a jump in their 30s they are overachieving. Wideman is actually less clear cut because he has come close to putting up these types of numbers. But he still had a career season in points and goals. More then that was his overall play when paired with Russell. I think both players benefited a lot from their line mates. Hudler had great chemistry with the kids, and Wideman looked poor when separated from Russell. That means their numbers, and their value, is inflated. And both are guys we need to think about extending or trading. I like both. But you only have a couple of big contracts to hand out. These are guys in their thirties. I think if you give them the big contracts you regret it. And we aren't in a position to lose them for nothing. The Flames are at a point where they are deciding who to build around. If you are giving a player a term contract at 6m+ then you are building around that player. Giordano is getting a contract. Do we really see Hudler, Giordano, and Wideman as the big money guys we should be building around? I don't.
-
I think Wideman was really good this season. I am not sold that he will keep that up though. I think you can move him, even with his contract. I would do that. I would try and move Engellend. You couldn't move him early. But after he stepped it up in the final third I think you may be able to now. If not he is on the third. Smid has to be your 7D at best. But I don't know if he plays again. You definitely don't put him in the top 4. Wideman was terrible paired with Smid. I think you trade Wideman and look to add two players. Green, Schenn, and a few others come to mind. We need more depth on D. We need to move Wideman while there is value. We need to keep our D mobile by moving players that aren't.
-
Your D has to be mobile and be competent at both ends of the ice. I don't want any slow defence only D on my team. They are liabilities that lead to fire drills on your own end and who limit your team offence on the rush and on the offensive zone. I also don't want Babchuck like D that can only assist in the offensive zone. But I agree you need size as well. Which is why 2 way big physical and mobile D are the most sought after commodity this side of the legitimate top line C.
-
I am really curious to see what Treliving does. Will he stay the course? Maybe cash in on some of our overachievers by trading guys like Hudler and Wideman? Or will he fast track the rebuild by trading some of our picks and prospects? Or does he just stay pretty close to status quo by making small moves and letting the youth development bring us to the next level? All three are defensible strategies. I am really curious to see what the Flames do.
-
Ramo wasn't great Tuesday. He made some huge saves, especially in OT. But the second and third goals should have been stopped. His rebound control was off. His positioning wasn't great. He didn't look calm.
-
Hiller was great least series. He was pulled in game 6, but not due to bad play. It's tough not to start him. I think he has a short leash. But starting him is the right call imo.
-
Even in the regular season Hartley played the hot hand until he cooled off. Tough to take the start away from a hit goalie.
-
Giordano is targeting the third round. At least according to tonight's broadcast.
-
You can't sit Hiller right now. The guy is hot and on a roll and he deserves the start. Even in the regular season Hartley played the hot goalie. That won't and shouldn't change in the playoffs. Ramo will get a start if Hiller falters or gets hurt.
-
I agree with this. The timing of the injury was terrible for Ramo. He was putting up really good numbers and looked to be the starter leading into the playoffs. The injury derailed all of that. There is a real chance he doesn't get another start this season. That said, if Ramo is willing to sign a 1 year deal at 2 million or less he may get another shot with the Flames. Ortio is a gamble. Perhaps a small one, but a gamble. Going into next season with a three way battle for two spots isn't a bad thing.
-
You would have to be watching Flames games in a book to have an issue with either Ramo or Hiller this year. Even then you would need to squint pretty hard. Goalie stats ate a poor indicator. I don't think we have Vezina caliber goalies by any stretch. But more nights then not the guy in our net has been as good or better then the guy in the other net. Which is what you want.
-
I agree. A few guys have really stepped it up in the absence of our first line producing. Bollig, Ferland, Schlemko, Brodie, Backlund, and Stajan top my list. An honorable mention goes out to Jones as well.
-
Backlund isn't Lombardi. There are similarities. Both were injury prone. Both could net you between 40 to 50 points with most of the production coming even strength. Both played the PK. Both were a little soft. But Backlund is a high end defensive forward while Lombardi didn't bring much to the table when he wasn't producing. People are underestimating a 0.5 ppg player with high end defensive skills. That isn't bad production especially considering his role. That is a very useful player. I don't disagree that he may and even should be moved. You can't have too much C depth, but he may get you back a position you need more (ie D). I just don't get the lack of respect he gets from some fans. He is a good player.
-
Thanks for the update. Still, his first three games (on paper) didn't appear to go all that well.
-
I don't know if that is entirely fair. I haven't seen Raymond make defensive errors consistently. Plus this is a team that lives and dies on the forecheck and on generating the rush. So speed is really important and Raymond brings that. I don't see him as a player we should have overpaid to get. And he is soft and terribly inconsistent offensively. So I get (and make) the criticism. But I wouldn't paint him as someone that coughs up the puck regularly.
-
I was supportive of the idea of signing a veteran so we weren't pressured into playing a kid that wasn't ready. So I agree with you that at the time it looked like we needed some depth at the position. But we didn't need to sign someone to a three year deal IMO. Even keeping Galiardi would have been preferable.
-
McDonald is struggling in the playoffs. .879 SV% and a 3.98 GAA with only 1 win in his 3 starts. He lost the net to rookie MacCallum.
-
This was the same debate about Raymond that occurred in Vancouver. He is fast and he can score goals in streaks. So some like him. But of an 82 game season he is invisible for at least 50 games. I don't have a huge issue with him filling a spot on the team because he isn't a liability. But I do have an issue with the term and cap hit. Overpaying for a player like Raymond isn't necessary. He was begging for a contract just to stay in the game a season ago and supposedly really wanted to play in Calgary. I don't get the contract.
-
I don't like Engelland, but I get the need. Raymond was unnecessary. There were plenty of other options that weren't going to cost us that kind of contract. I also don't like the player. If he isn't scoring he isn't helping. And he disappears for weeks at a time.